Category Archives: Ebola

Post navigation

News outlets are reporting a new Ebola outbreak in Africa. Here is a quick summary of the basic mainstream story—

The Huffington Post cites a World Health Organization (WHO) statement: four people are believed to have died from Ebola in the Congo.

There are 37 more “suspected cases.”

Discussions are underway about using an “experimental vaccine” in the Congo.

WHO has declared the Ebola outbreak an epidemic.

There is an effort to find 400 people believed to have come into contact with the “suspected cases.” Residents in the affected area of the Congo, the remote Bas-Uele province, are fleeing in fear.

That’s it so far.

I’ve been around the block on the Ebola story a dozen times. Here are the issues the press isn’t reporting—

There is one predictable outcome: at Congo clinics and hospitals, frightened people who arrive with what are labeled “early signs” of Ebola will be labeled as probable cases. What are those symptoms? Fever, chill, sore throat, cough, headache, joint pain. Sound familiar? Normally, this would just be called the flu.

Here’s another point you won’t see discussed on the mainstream news: the reliability of tests used to diagnose Ebola.

Two of those major tests—antibody and PCR—are notoriously unreliable.

Antibody tests will register positive for disease because they ping on factors that have nothing to do with the disease being looked for. And even when the test is accurate, a positive reading merely shows that the patient came in contact with the germ in question. It says nothing about whether he’s ill or is going to become ill.

In fact, before 1985, when the science was turned on its head, antibody-positive status was taken to mean the patient’s immune system had successfully warded off the germ.

The PCR test is a sophisticated way of amplifying tiny, tiny bits of what are assumed to be viral material, so they can be observed. The problem here is this: if only tiny bits of material could be found in the patient’s body in the first place, there is no reason to suppose they’re enough to cause disease. Very, very large amounts of virus are necessary to begin to suspect the patient is ill or is going to become ill.

Bottom line: huge numbers of people on whom these tests are done are going to be falsely diagnosed with Ebola.

Here is what I wrote about the Ebola outbreak of 2014 in Africa. It applies today:

Ebola, covert op in a hypnotized world, August 2, 2014:

You show people a germ and you tell them what it is and what it does, and people salute. They give in. They believe. They actually know nothing. But they believe.

The massive campaign to make people believe the Ebola virus can attack at any moment, after the slightest contact, is quite a success.

People are falling all over themselves to raise the level of hysteria.

This is what is preventing a hard look at Liberia, Sierra Leone, and the Republic Guinea, three African nations where poverty and illness are staples of everyday life for the overwhelming number of people.

The command structure in those areas has a single dictum: don’t solve the human problem.

Don’t clean up the contaminated water supplies, don’t return stolen land to the people so they can grow food and finally achieve nutritional health, don’t solve overcrowding, don’t install basic sanitation, don’t strengthen their immune systems so they can ward off germs, don’t let the people have power—because then they would throw off the local and global corporate juggernauts that are sucking the land of all its resources.

In order not to solve the problems of the people, a cover story is necessary. A cover story that exonerates the power structure.

A cover story like a germ.

It’s all about the germ. The demon. The strange attacker.

Forget everything else. The germ is the single enemy.

Forget the fact, for example, that a recent study of 15 pharmacies and 5 hospital drug dispensaries in Sierra Leone discovered the widespread and unconscionable use of beta-lactam antibiotics.

These drugs are highly toxic. One of their effects? Excessive bleeding.

Which just happens to be the scary “Ebola effect” that’s being trumpeted in the world press.

(J Clin Microbiol, July 2013, 51(7), 2435-2438), and Annals of Internal Medicine Dec. 1986, “Potential for bleeding with the new beta-lactam antibiotics”)

Forget the fact that pesticide companies are notorious for shipping banned toxic pesticides to Africa. One effect of the chemicals? Bleeding.

Forget that. It’s all about the germ and nothing but the germ.

Forget the fact that, for decades, one of the leading causes of death in the Third World has been uncontrolled diarrhea. Electrolytes are drained from the body, and the adult or the baby dies. (Diarrhea is also listed as an “Ebola” symptom.)

Any sane doctor would make it his first order of business to replace electrolytes with simple supplementation—but no, the standard medical line goes this way:

The diarrhea is caused by germs in the intestinal tract, so we must pile on massive amounts of antibiotics to kill the germs.

The drugs kill off all bacteria in the gut, including the necessary and beneficial ones, and the patient can’t absorb what little food he has access to, and he dies.

Along the way, he can also bleed.

But no, all the bleeding comes from Ebola. It’s the germ. Don’t think about anything else.

Forget the fact that adenovirus vaccines, which have been used in Liberia, Guinea, and Liberia (the epicenter of Ebola), have, according to vaccines.gov, the following adverse effects: blood in the urine or stool, and diarrhea.

No, all the bleeding comes from the Ebola germ. Of course. Don’t think about anything else.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Like this:

Public health officials usually fail to announce their reasons for claiming a particular virus causes a particular disease; they make those claims in an arbitrary authoritarian fashion.

In this article, I’m going to describe two vital steps in the process of proving a virus causes a disease. There are more steps, but these two will highlight a gaping problem.

I’m putting the information in a Q&A format:

Q: Let’s say researchers are claiming there is a new outbreak of a disease, or there is a disease they’ve never seen before. What’s their first step?

A: Most of the time, they assume a virus is the cause, rather than, say, a pesticide or a medical drug. They jump in and start looking for a virus.

Q: And when they find a virus?

A: Assuming they really do find one, they then look for correlation.

Q: What does that mean?

A: Let’s say they claim they’ve discovered 600 cases of the disease. They try to find the same virus in all those people. Because, if you say a virus causes a particular disease, you have to show that virus is present in all known cases of the disease—or an overwhelming percentage of cases, at the very least.

Q: That would be proof…

A: That would be one step of proof.

Q: Suppose, in these 600 cases, they can find the same virus in a hundred cases. Isn’t that pretty significant?

A: No. It isn’t. It means you couldn’t find the virus in 500 cases. And if that’s true, there is no reason to assume you have the right virus. In fact, it’s very strong evidence you don’t have the virus that’s causing the disease. It’s a compelling reason to go back to the drawing board. You say, “Well, we were wrong about that virus, let’s look for a different one.”

Q: All right. What if you do find the virus in 583 cases out of 600? Then what do you do?

A: You have to understand that the mere PRESENCE of the virus in all those cases ISN’T PROOF it’s causing disease. Lots of people walk around with the same virus in their bodies, but that virus isn’t causing them to get sick. You have to go further.

Q: Meaning?

A: Well, the next step would be finding that the 583 cases have a whole lot of the same virus in their bodies. A great quantity of virus. Not merely a trace. Not merely a little bit.

Q: Why?

A: Because cells in the body are reproducing all the time. If the amount of virus in the body is only infecting a tiny fraction of a particular type of cell, the virus isn’t going to cause a problem. The body is going to produce gigantic numbers of fresh uninfected cells every day.

Q: Do researcher carry out this kind of investigation? Do they assess how much virus is in a person’s body?

A: There are many situations where they don’t. For example, with the Zika virus, I see no evidence researchers examined many, many cases to see how much Zika was present.

Q: Why didn’t they?

A: You’d have to ask them. Perhaps they started to do that, and found there was only a tiny bit of Zika in the babies they examined, and they didn’t want to publicize the fact. They just wanted to assume Zika was the causes of babies being born with small heads and brain damage. But assuming isn’t proving.

Q: You’re talking about a major gap in research.

A: Yes.

Q: What method is used to decide how much virus is in a person’s body?

A: There are several methods. For example, the PCR test.

Q: What’s that?

A: With the PCR, you take a tiny, tiny sample of tissue from a patient. It’s so small you can’t observe it directly. You assume, you hope, you think this sample is a fragment of a virus. Now you amplify that fragment many times, until you can observe it, until you can (hopefully) identify it as the virus you claim is causing the disease…

Q: But that test wouldn’t tell you HOW MUCH virus is in the person’s body.

A: Many researchers believe the PCR allows you to infer how much virus is in a person’s body. I see no convincing evidence they can make such an inference. But also—you have to ask yourself, why did they do the PCR test in the first place? And the answer is: they couldn’t find, by more direct methods, any virus! If they had been able to, they wouldn’t have done the PCR. In other words, there was no reason to believe the patient had enough virus in his body to make him sick.

Q: Again, it seems there is a gaping hole in the research.

A: Indeed. But that doesn’t stop scientists from claiming they’ve found the virus that is causing a disease. I would cite two examples. In 2009, the CDC was embarrassed to learn that the overwhelming percentage of tests on Swine Flu patients were coming back from labs with NO TRACE of Swine Flu virus or any other flu virus. And in 2003, in Canada, more and more SARS patients were showing NO TRACE of the SARS virus.

Q: They would be enormous scandals.

A: They should have been enormous scandals, but the news was suppressed and buried.

Q: These people who were labeled with SARS and Swine Flu—what was really making these people sick?

A: There could have been a variety of causes. Don’t assume all so-called SARS or Swine Flu patients were sick for the same reason. The symptoms of these two illnesses were vague enough and general enough to have stemmed from a variety of causes. Since that’s the case, there was no reason to use the SARS and Swine Flu labels in the first place.

Q: The labels were a deception.

A: Yes. The labels group people together when there is no compelling reason to do so. But when you DO group people together with a disease label, you can sell drugs and vaccines designed to “treat the label.”

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

There are very few investigators on the planet who are interested in this subject. I am one of them. There is a reason why.

In many articles, I’ve written about the shocking lack of logic in the curriculum of advanced centers of learning. When I attended college, I was fortunate to have a professor who taught logic, and taught it in a way that appealed to the minds of his students. In other words, for those of us who cared, we could not only absorb the subject matter, we could think with it; for example, we could approach an area of knowledge and track it back to its most basic premises. And then we could check those premises and see whether they were true and correct. If they were incorrect, we could then challenge many accepted notions that followed from those basic untruths.

That is one of the payoffs of being able to deploy logic.

With this introduction, let me bring up the issue of disease-causation. How do researchers decide that a given virus causes a given condition?

There are many twists and turns involved in answering the question, but before being able to engage in such a discussion, a more basic factor has to be considered:

Has the virus in question ever been isolated and identified? More simply, has it ever been found?

Obviously, in order to eventually say virus A causes condition B, you have to know you’ve found, discovered, isolated virus A from some tissue sample removed from a human being.

I’m not talking about tests run on people in 2016, to decide whether they have virus A. I’m talking about the first time, the first time ever a researcher said, “I’ve found a virus we’ve never seen before. I’m calling it virus A.”

So, for example, with all the chatter about people with Ebola in recent years, the question would be: when was the first time a researcher said, “We’ve verified the existence of a virus we’ve never seen before, and we’re calling it Ebola.”

When was that, and by what procedure was this discovery made?

For many people, it’s unthinkable that scientists would say a given virus is causing many people to fall ill—and yet that virus had never really been isolated and identified—but who knows what you find out when you go down the rabbit hole?

Let’s consider HIV, the purported cause of AIDS. Independent reporter Christine Johnson conducted a magnificent and shocking rabbit-hole interview with Dr. Eleni Papadopulos, “a biophysicist and leader of a group of HIV/AIDS scientists from Perth in Western Australia. Over the past decade and more she and her colleagues have published many scientific papers questioning the HIV/AIDS hypothesis…” The interview was titled: Does HIV Exist?

I’ll highlight part of the exchange, because it’s so telling and instructive. Keep in mind that what Eleni Papadopulos is saying about HIV could apply to any virus — including zika.

The interview takes up a few complex procedures, but if you read through it several times, you should be able to sort out the key points:

Christine Johnson (CJ): Does HIV cause AIDS?

Eleni Papadopulos (EP): There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS.

CJ: Why not?

EP: For many reasons, but most importantly, because there is no proof that HIV exists.

CJ: Didn’t Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo [purportedly the co-discoverers of HIV] isolate HIV back in the early eighties?

EP: No. In the papers published in Science by those two research groups, there is no proof of the isolation of a retrovirus from AIDS patients. [HIV is said to be a retrovirus.]

CJ: They say they did isolate a virus.

EP: Our interpretation of the data differs. To prove the existence of a virus you need to do three things. First, culture cells and find a particle you think might be a virus. Obviously, at the very least, that particle should look like a virus. Second, you have to devise a method to get that particle on its own so you can take it to pieces and analyze precisely what makes it up. Then you need to prove the particle can make faithful copies of itself. In other words, that it can replicate.

CJ: Can’t you just look down a microscope and say there’s a virus in the cultures?

EP: No, you can’t. Not all particles that look like viruses are viruses.

CJ: My understanding is that high-speed centrifugation is used to produce samples consisting exclusively of objects having the same density, a so-called “density-purified sample.” Electron microscopy is used to see if these density-purified samples consist of objects which all have the same appearance — in which case the sample is an isolate — and if this appearance matches that of a retrovirus, in terms of size, shape, and so forth. If all this is true, then you are three steps into the procedure for obtaining a retroviral isolate. (1) You have an isolate, and the isolate consists of objects with the same (2) density and (3) appearance of a retrovirus. Then you have to examine this isolate further, to see if the objects in it contain reverse transcriptase [an enzyme] and will replicate when placed in new cultures. Only then can you rightfully declare that you have obtained a retroviral isolate.

EP: Exactly. It was discovered that retroviral particles have a physical property which enables them to be separated from other material in cell cultures. That property is their buoyancy, or density, and this was utilized to purify the particles by a process called density gradient centrifugation.

The technology is complicated, but the concept is extremely simple. You prepare a test tube containing a solution of sucrose, ordinary table sugar, made so the solution is light at the top but gradually becomes heavier, or more dense, towards the bottom. Meanwhile, you grow whatever cells you think may contain your retrovirus. If you’re right, retroviral particles will be released from the cells and pass into the culture fluids. When you think everything is ready, you decant a specimen of culture fluids and gently place a drop on top of the sugar solution. Then you spin the test tube at extremely high speeds. This generates tremendous forces, and particles present in that drop of fluid are forced through the sugar solution until they reach a point where their buoyancy prevents them from penetrating any further. In other words, they drift down the density gradient until they reach a spot where their own density is the same as that region of the sugar solution. When they get there they stop, all together. To use virological jargon, that’s where they band. Retroviruses band at a characteristic point. In sucrose solutions they band at a point where the density is 1.16 gm/ml.

That band can then be selectively extracted and photographed with an electron microscope. The picture is called an electron micrograph, or EM. The electron microscope enables particles the size of retroviruses to be seen, and to be characterized by their appearance.

CJ: So, examination with the electron microscope tells you what fish you’ve caught?

EP: Not only that. It’s the only way to know if you’ve caught a fish. Or anything at all.

CJ: Did Montagnier and Gallo do this?

EP: This is one of the many problems. Montagnier and Gallo did use density gradient banding, but for some unknown reason they did not publish any Ems [electron microscope photos] of the material at 1.16 gm/ml…this is quite puzzling because in 1973 the Pasteur Institute hosted a meeting attended by scientists, some of whom are now amongst the leading HIV experts. At that meeting the method of retroviral isolation was thoroughly discussed, and photographing the 1.16 band of the density gradient was considered absolutely essential.

CJ: But Montagnier and Gallo did publish photographs of virus particles.

EP: No. Montagnier and Gallo published electron micrographs of culture fluids that had not been centrifuged, or even separated from the culture cells, for that matter. These EMs contained, in addition to many other things, including the culture cells and other things that clearly are not retroviruses, a few particles which Montagnier and Gallo claimed are retroviruses, and which all belonged to the same retroviral species, now called HIV. But photographs of unpurified particles don’t prove that those particles are viruses. The existence of HIV was not established by Montagnier and Gallo — or anyone since — using the method presented at the 1973 meeting.

CJ: And what was that method?

EP: All the steps I have just told you. The only scientific method that exists. Culture cells, find a particle, isolate the particle, take it to pieces, find out what’s inside, and then prove those particles are able to make more of the same with the same constituents when they’re added to a culture of uninfected cells.

CJ: So before AIDS came along there was a well-tried method for proving the existence of a retrovirus, but Montagnier and Gallo did not follow this method?

EP: They used some of the techniques, but they did not undertake every step including proving what particles, if any, are in the 1.16 gm/ml band of the density gradient, the density that defines retroviral particles.

CJ: But what about their pictures?

EP: Montagnier’s and Gallo’s electron micrographs…are of entire cell cultures, or of unpurified fluids from cultures…”

—end of interview excerpt—

This is shocking, to say the least.

How can researchers or doctors say that HIV is causing AIDS, when the correct procedures for finding HIV and identifying it were never followed in the first place?

“HIV causes AIDS. Of course it does. But, oops, we never proved the virus exists.”

“Of course it exists. It has to.”

“Yes. Right. But we never isolated it. We never demonstrated that it exists.”

“This conversation is counter-productive. Let’s move on.”

“Yes, we must move on. We never spoke of this.”

There is no rabbit hole. Of course not.

That gaping entrance with the tunnel that goes down and down and down? Must have been some construction project that was abandoned. Or it’s just an illusion. We need corrective lenses.

Sure, and if enough people keep saying this, they’ll all forget the logic that keeps staring them in the face.

I’ll close with another example: SARS. In 2003, this “dreaded epidemic” swept across the world. Quickly, it became apparent it was a dud. In Canada, a microbiologist, Frank Plummer, who was working for the World Health Organization (WHO), wandered off the reservation and told reporters he was puzzled by what he was seeing. Fewer and fewer people diagnosed with SARS showed any trace of the coronavirus, which WHO claimed was the cause of SARS. Plummer was essentially saying people with SARS didn’t have SARS. That was a major scandal, but the press wouldn’t touch it with a ten-foot pole.

It raised an even more basic question. Had WHO researchers ever actually found this coronavirus in the first place, or had they asserted its existence based on scanty (or no) evidence?

No one in major media asked or cared. They went along with the “epidemic” story, and when it died, they moved on to other matters.

That strategy is what passes for logic esteemed fourth estate.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

“I have many reasons for exposing hoaxes about viruses. One vital reason: when people realize the truth, they begin to grasp, at a visceral level, what’s possible in the area of fake-reality invention. They see their own prior assumptions go whirling down the drain. They see how many pancakes of propaganda can be stacked up on one plate. The virus hoax cuts very, very deep, all the way down into what people automatically accept as Obvious. It isn’t obvious at all. It’s a complete fabrication. It’s an artifact made out of nothing.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

“The return of Ebola in Liberia — with three new cases reported this week in the previously Ebola-free country — is worrisome, and raises questions about whether Liberia was really free of the disease to begin with, experts say.”

Reader, we’re moving into deep waters now. This isn’t just about Ebola. This is about the whole structure of false medical reality.

And that reality begins with the arrogant assurance that what’s killing very large numbers of people can be traced to a virus.

The “experts” present a unified front. They assert that their tests for these viruses are correct, pure, and extremely useful.

Yes, the tests are useful to the pharmaceutical companies who make the drugs that purport to kill the viruses and the vaccines that purport to give immunity to the viruses.

And they mask the fact that actual isolation of the virus from the human body is not being done.

Several readers have asked me what “isolation of a virus” means. The most obvious answer is: you know you’re looking at virus, rather than something else.

For example, you remove diseased tissue from a human being, and from it you separate out probable virus from non-viral material, and you then take electron microscope pictures of the probable, and you look at those picture, and you see lots and lots of the same virus. Not what could be or might be virus, but definitely virus.

This is direct. This is virus from a human. This is not indirect testing that is faulty, irrelevant, and can go wrong in many ways. Isolation is what you need to begin to say a virus could be causing a disease.

Let me take you down a road that is rarely traveled and show you a few precedents where “everybody knows it’s a virus” turned out to be dead wrong.

“[According to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001—61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.”

That’s 18.

At various times, the CDC has stated that, every year, 36,000 Americans die from the flu…or, after revising that estimate, the CDC states it could be anywhere from 3000 to 49,000.

But only 18 patients’ blood samples showed any sign of the presence of the flu virus.

Consider Pellagra. In the first half of the 20th century, in the US, there were three million cases. 100,000 people died. Researchers at health agencies insisted there had to be germ at the bottom of it. They looked and looked and looked.

Meanwhile, other researchers found out Pellagra was mainly a deficiency of niacin. They were pushed into the background. “A bunch of fools. Pay no attention to them.”

Finally, after 100,000 deaths, most of which were unnecessary, the “experts” grudgingly admitted, “Yes, it’s niacin.”

Fifty years ago, there was a massive outbreak of a nervous-system disorder in Japan. It was called SMON (subacute myelo-optic neuropathy). Tens of thousands of cases, many deaths. People were in an uproar.

Researchers were told to look for a virus. So they did. And did. And did. It had to be a virus.

Against much opposition, a small group of investigators and lawyers publicly proposed a different answer. SMON was the result of a drug Ciba-Geigy was selling to alleviate gastrointestinal distress. The drug was Clioquinol.

“An insider, Dr. Frank Plummer, spilled the beans: ‘The director… told The Scientist yesterday (April 10) that the new coronavirus implicated as the cause of the disease is certainly around in the environment but is unlikely to be the causative agent. Frank Plummer is director of Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg.’

“Plummer stated, ‘we are finding some of the best-characterized [SARS disease] cases are negative [for the SARS virus]. So it’s puzzling. As is the fact the amounts of virus we are finding, when we find it, are very small—only detectable by very sensitive PCR [testing].’”

Even when the so-called cause of SARS was found in patients, the amount was so small there was no way to say it would create disease. Plummer eventually admitted that the percentage of SARS cases in which the virus was present was approaching zero. Translation: the viral cause of SARS couldn’t be the cause.

Here’s another reference, which sheds much more light on what “isolation of a virus” means: Journalist Christine Johnson’s interview, “Does HIV exist?” with Dr. Eleni Papadopulos, “a biophysicist and leader of a group of HIV/AIDS scientists from Perth in Western Australia. Over the past decade and more, she [Papadopulos] and her colleagues have published many scientific papers questioning the HIV/AIDS hypothesis.”

Here is a brief edited excerpt—the entire interview is published at primitivism.com:

CJ [Christine Johnson]: Does HIV cause AIDS?

EPE [Papadopulos]: There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS.

CJ: Why not?

EPE: For many reasons, but most importantly, because there is no proof that HIV exists.

…CJ: Didn’t Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo isolate HIV back in the early eighties?

EPE: No. In the papers published in Science by those two research groups, there is no proof of the isolation of a retrovirus from AIDS patients…

CJ: They say they did isolate a virus.

EPE: Our interpretation of the data differs…To prove the existence of a virus you need to do three things. First, culture cells and find a particle you think might be a virus. Obviously, at the very least, that particle should look like a virus. Second, you have to devise a method to get that particle on its own so you can take it to pieces and analyze precisely what makes it up. Then you need to prove the particle can make faithful copies of itself. In other words, that it can replicate.

CJ: Can’t you just look down a microscope and say there’s a virus in the cultures?

EPE: No, you can’t. Not all particles that look like viruses are viruses.

CJ: So where did AIDS research go wrong?

EPE: It’s not so much a question of where the research went wrong. It’s more a question of what was left out. For some unknown reason the decades-old method of retroviral isolation…developed to study animal retroviruses was not followed. Retroviruses are incredibly tiny, almost spherical particles with diameters of about one hundred nanometers (one ten-thousandth of a millimeter). Millions would fit comfortably on the head of a pin.

…CJ: What do we see in [electron microscope pictures of HIV]… published in 1997?

EPE: These photographs vindicate the position we have held ever since the beginning. Two groups, one Franco/German…and one from the US National Cancer Institute…published pictures…The first thing to say is that the authors of these studies concede that their pictures reveal that the vast majority of the material…is cellular. The authors describe all this material as “non-viral”, or as “mock” virus or “microvesicles,” which are encapsulated cell fragments.

CJ: Are there any viral particles in these pictures?

EPE: There are a few particles which the researchers claim are retroviral particles. In fact, they claim these are the HIV particles, but give no evidence why.

CJ: Are there lots of these HIV particles?

EPE: No…when you take an electron micrograph they [HIV particles] should fill the entire picture. Instead, these candidate retroviruses are minority constituents of the published electron micrographs. Thus, molecules extracted from these samples can not be assumed to come from those retroviral-like particles.

—end of interview excerpt—

So no, the experts aren’t automatically right when they say, “It’s a virus.”

You can read Rasnick’s bio at his site, davidrasnick.com. He obtained his PhD from the Georgia Institute of Technology, and spent 25 years working with proteases (a class of enzymes) and protease inhibitors. He is the author of the book, The Chromosomal Imbalance Theory of Cancer. He was a member of the Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel of South Africa.

The subject of our conversation was the isolation of the Ebola virus from humans. Has it ever been done?

Direct isolation is far different from diagnostic tests such as antibody or PCR, which are both indirect methods of assessment. In previous articles, I’ve covered the irrelevance of these two tests.

Any discussion of the Ebola virus must begin with the question of direct isolation. The whole presumption of an Ebola outbreak and epidemic rests on that question.

Was the Ebola virus ever purified and isolated from a human?

Here is what Rasnick wrote, after his search of the published literature:

“I have examined in detail the literature on isolation and Ems [EM: electron microscope pictures] of both Ebola and Marburg viruses. I have not found any convincing evidence that Ebola virus (and for that matter Marburg) has been isolated from humans. There is certainly no confirmatory evidence of human isolation.

“I asked the CDC what constitutes isolation of Ebola virus from human specimens. I also asked for the protocol for isolating Ebola virus. [No convincing reply from the CDC as of this date.]

“Virtually everything that is known and done with these viruses is in animals and cell culture.”

Rasnick continued:

“There is the possibility that Ebola and Marburg viruses represent laboratory artifacts. I’m inclined to think this is the case. What I mean is the viruses are real but may exist at very low levels in wild animals and even humans, well-below pathogenic [disease-causing] levels. These ‘passenger’ viruses may be activated and amplified in laboratory culturing conditions designed for that purpose in order to produce enough viral particles to be characterized.

“Viruses causing real pathology are abundant in the diseased tissues. You can see them using EM on the primary tissue. You do not need to amplify the virus in cell culture. I’m always suspicious when cell culture is the only way a virus is observable by EM.”

Rasnick’s findings are a direct challenge to the basis of the whole “Ebola outbreak.” If indeed the Ebola virus has never been isolated from a human being, the so-called epidemic is unproven.

To say this is shocking would be a vast understatement.

When public-health officials and governments claim there is an epidemic, the burden of proof is on them.

At this point, they must, first and foremost, show someone, somewhere, correctly and directly and undeniably isolated Ebola virus from a human being.

In past articles, I’ve demonstrated how people could become ill from factors other than viruses—factors which are ignored and even maintained, in order to keep populations in a debilitated state, unable to resist their political leaders and corporations intent on taking over land and resources.

These fake viral “outbreaks and epidemics” also serve to keep populations in fear, at which point they look to their leaders to tell them what to do. This is programming for compliance.

One aspect of studying the matrix called civilization involves unearthing the most basic assumptions which people accept—assumptions they couldn’t possibly believe are false, much less intentionally false.

The analysis I’m presenting here is one corner on one street in a massive city-labyrinth called Matrix.

(For more information on analyzing and deconstructing false realities, see “Analyzing Information in the Age of Disinformation” in Power Outside The Matrix.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

“This is a request for published records, data, studies, electron microscope photographs, work notes, and internal correspondence relating to and describing, in detail, the direct isolation of the Ebola virus from human beings.

“Note: My request does not seek information on this subject which is derived from antibody tests, PCR tests, or virus cultured and grown outside the human body. Nor does it seek electron microscope photographs which are, in fact, simulations or the result of computer models.

The CDC has not replied. So until I see otherwise, I’ll assume they have no evidence to offer. They can’t prove they’ve ever isolated the Ebola virus from a human.

That would mean they can’t prove “Ebola” is in any way connected to what they’re calling the Ebola virus.

Disease hoaxes start at square one, where the fundamental assumptions are made. And one of the first assumptions is: humans who are labeled with a germ-caused disease house that germ in their bodies.

This seems like a truism. But it isn’t, because there are cases in which an “outbreak” is promoted, and yet the virus which is said to be at the root of the outbreak can’t be found.

It can’t be found in the body. Or it can’t be found in sufficient quantity to cause disease.

Its presence and influence can only be inferred through faulty and/or deceptive means.

That’s why, in email correspondence with me, David Rasnick, PhD, announced this shocking finding:

“I have examined in detail the literature on isolation and Ems [EM: electron microscope pictures] of both Ebola and Marburg viruses. I have not found any convincing evidence that Ebola virus (and for that matter Marburg) has been isolated from humans. There is certainly no confirmatory evidence of human isolation.”

Rasnick obtained his PhD from the Georgia Institute of Technology, and spent 25 years working with proteases (a class of enzymes) and protease inhibitors. He is the author of the book, The Chromosomal Imbalance Theory of Cancer. He was a member of the Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel of South Africa.

Unless and until I see convincing evidence to the contrary, Rasnick’s statement is a knockout punch.

That means the whole Ebola “epidemic” was and is a hoax.

As my readers know, I’ve gone over the Ebola situation carefully, from many angles, in past articles (archived here). I’ve shown that every symptom and effect that has been attributed to the Ebola virus (including bleeding) can be accounted for and explained in other ways.

No virus necessary. None.

There are two prominent tests which are supposed to diagnosis the Ebola virus in patients. The antibody and the PCR (polymerase chain reaction).

But the antibody test often registers falsely positive for the presence of a virus, because the test is actually is reacting to a number of non-viral factors. And even when the test is accurate, it merely shows the patient has come in contact with the virus in question. It doesn’t imply past, present, or future illness. Until 1984, when the science was turned on its head for no good reason, a positive antibody test was generally taken to mean the patient’s immune system had successfully warded off the virus.

The PCR test takes a tiny, tiny fleck of genetic material assumed to come from a virus and amplifies it to the point where it can be observed. The test is prone to many errors. Even when it is done accurately, it doesn’t imply the patient will ever become ill. Why? Because illness only occurs when there are huge numbers of virus in the body—and the PCR test is a completely unreliable indicator of number. Also, why bother to use the PCR at all, since if the patient actually has a great deal of virus in his body, there are easier and more direct means of isolating it.

Both widely used tests for Ebola virus are irrelevant and useless.

I stand behind my prior articles: no convincing evidence has been presented to show the so-called “Ebola outbreak” stems from the Ebola virus.

Therefore, one should look for other causes of the illness and death labeled “Ebola.”

The causes are there; they are non-viral; and they can be corrected and eliminated by non-medical means.

But they don’t produce profits. They don’t scare the public into complying with government demands. They don’t scare the public into wanting a vaccine.

Doctors and nurses in West Africa were working in very high temperatures, in clinic rooms likely sprayed with extremely toxic organophosphate pesticides. These workers were sealed into hazmat suits, where temperatures rose even higher, causing the loss of up to five liters of body fluid during a one-hour shift. Then, recovering, they would need IV rehydration, and they would be doused with disinfectant chemicals. They would go back into the suits for another round of duty. One doctor reported that, inside his suit, there was (toxic) chlorine. These factors alone could cause dangerous illness and even death, and, of course, the basic symptoms of “Ebola.”

People diagnosed with Ebola outside West Africa? Again, the diagnostic tests are completely irrelevant and unreliable. Illness, if any, could come from a variety of causes. The “Ebola symptoms” are similar, for example, to the flu.

Repackaging a set of common symptoms under different disease labels is a standard practice of the medical cartel.

During the dreaded SARS epidemic (hoax) of 2003, a Canadian microbiologist named Frank Plummer, working for the World Health Organization, inadvertently blew the whistle on the whole con by admitting to the press that labs were finding fewer and fewer SARS patients that had the SARS virus in their bodies.

That’s an absurd contradiction. That’s saying, “The SARS illness caused by the SARS virus can’t be caused by the SARS virus because the SARS virus isn’t even there, but we’ll keep saying SARS is SARS, even though it can’t be.”

Total gibberish.

My FOIA request to the CDC about Ebola continues to go unanswered.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Whoever you are, if you have proof that the Ebola virus exists, make it known.

Post the evidence online, for all to see and analyze, and send me a link. (Don’t send me an attachment.)

Don’t waste time by parroting official reports or claiming that people becoming ill and dying are proof that Ebola exists.

I’m quite willing to say the virus exists if I (and the people I enlist to help me) see undeniable evidence.

Understand one thing: with this article, I’m taking the “Ebola issue” to a level never debated by conventional government-associated researchers.

They see a bandwagon and they jump on it.

This is different.

This will involve, for example, an examination of methods by which a person can conclude a virus exists. Is a given method reliable? Is it relevant? Is it widely accepted, but for no good reason?

Let’s put some cards on the table.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com.

“Kenya’s Catholic bishops are charging two United Nations organizations with sterilizing millions of girls and women under cover of an anti-tetanus inoculation program sponsored by the Kenyan government.

“According to a statement released Tuesday by the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, the organization has found an antigen that causes miscarriages in a vaccine being administered to 2.3 million girls and women by the World Health Organization and UNICEF. Priests throughout Kenya reportedly are advising their congregations to refuse the vaccine.

“We sent six samples from around Kenya to laboratories in South Africa. They tested positive for the HCG antigen,” Dr. Muhame Ngare of the Mercy Medical Centre in Nairobi told LifeSiteNews. “They were all laced with HCG.”

“Dr. Ngare, spokesman for the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, stated in a bulletin released November 4, “This proved right our worst fears; that this WHO campaign is not about eradicating neonatal tetanus but a well-coordinated forceful population control mass sterilization exercise using a proven fertility regulating vaccine. This evidence was presented to the Ministry of Health before the third round of immunization but was ignored.”

And not just a vaccine against the “killer germ” of the moment. We’re talking about a psyop to condition the population to vaccines in general.

There is much available literature on vaccines used for depopulation experiments. The research is ongoing. Undoubtedly, we only know a fraction of what is happening behind closed laboratory doors.

Depopulation has several objectives. Along one vector, it is an elite strategy designed to get rid of large numbers of people, in key areas of the world, where local revolutions would interfere with outside corporations staging a complete takeover of fertile land and rich natural resources.

A quote from the paper: “Our study provides insights into possible modes of action of the birth control vaccine promoted by the Task Force on Birth Control Vaccines of the WHO (World Health Organization).”

A birth control vaccine?

Yes.

A vaccine whose purpose is to achieve non-pregnancy where it ordinarily could occur. This particular vaccine was apparently just one of several anti-fertility vaccines the Task Force was promoting.

Yes. There is a Task Force on Birth Control Vaccines at WHO. This journal paper focuses on a hormone called human chorionic gonadotropin B (hCG). There is a heading in the FASEB paper (p.1382) called “Ability of antibodies to neutralize the biological activity of hCG.” The authors are trying to discover whether a state of non-fertility can be achieved by blocking the normal activity of hCG.

“Three major approaches to contraceptive vaccine development are being pursued at the present time. The most advanced approach, which has already reached the stage of phase 2 clinical trials, involves the induction of immunity against human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG). Vaccines are being engineered … incorporating tetanus or diptheria toxoid linked to a variety of hCG-based peptides … Clinical trials have revealed that such preparations are capable of stimulating the production of anti-hCG antibodies…”

The authors are talking about creating an immune response against a female hormone. Training a woman’s body to react against one of its own secreted hormones. The authors state, “The fundamental principle behind this approach to contraceptive vaccine development is to prevent the maternal recognition of pregnancy by inducing a state of immunity against hGC, the hormone that signals the presence of the embryo to the maternal endocrine system.”

Stop the female body from recognizing a state of pregnancy. Get the body to treat the natural hormone hCG as an intruder, a disease agent, and mobilize the forces of the immune system against it. Create a synthetic effect, an engineered effect, by which the mother’s “maternal endocrine system” does not swing into gear when pregnancy occurs. The result? The embryo in the mother is swept away by her next period—since hGC, which signals the existence of the pregnancy and halts menstruation cycles, is now treated as a disease entity.

The authors put it this way: “In principle, the induction of immunity against hGC should lead to a sequence of normal, or slightly extended, menstrual cycles during which any pregnancies would be terminated…”

Miscarriage would then be the “normal” state of affairs. These authors leave no doubt about who the target of this vaccine would be:

“During the next decade the world’s population is set to rise by around 500 million. Moreover, because the rates of population growth in the developing countries of Africa, South America, and Asia will be so much greater than the rest of the world, the distribution of this dramatic population growth will be uneven…”

Two other vaccine methods are described. They “aim to prevent conception by interfering with the intricate cascade of interactive events that characterize the union of male and female gametes at fertilization.”

The diptheria and tetanus vaccines would function as a social and political mask—to hide the sterilizing intent, as millions of women in the Third World would receive vaccines they’re told would protect them against infections and disease.

A letter to a medical journal, The Lancet, p.1222, Volume 339, May 16, 1992. “Cameroon: Vaccination and politics.” Peter Ndumbe and Emmanuel Yenshu, the authors of this letter, report on their efforts to analyze widespread popular resistance to a tetanus vaccine given in the northwest province of Cameroon.

Two of the reasons women rejected the vaccine: it was given only to “females of childbearing age,” and people heard that a “sterilizing agent” was present in the vaccine.

“… the true concern of Kissinger analysts [in Memorandum 200] was maintenance of US access to Third World resources. They worried that the ‘political consequences’ of population growth [in the Third World] could produce internal instability … With famine and food riots and the breakdown of social order in such countries, [the Kissinger memo warns that] ‘the smooth flow of needed materials will be jeopardized.’”

In other words, too many people equals disruption for the transnational corporations, who steal nations from those very people.

Does this remind you of what is happening in West Africa now, re “the Ebola crisis?” Lockdown. Borders sealed. Over the past five years, several vaccine campaigns—and who knows what other vectors for the transmission of toxic elements to the population.

Cockburn notes that the writers of the Kissinger memo “favored sterilization over food aid.” He goes on to say that “By 1977, Reimart Ravenholt, the director of AID’s [US Agency for International Development] population program, was saying that his agency’s goal was to sterilize one-quarter of the world’s women.”

There were unconfirmed reports from the Philippines and Mexico that their 1993 tetanus vaccination programs—which were supposedly administered only to women of childbearing age—involved multiple injections.

Tetanus vaccine protocols indicate that one injection is good for ten years. Therefore, multiple injections would indicate another motive for the vaccinations—such as the anti-fertility effect of hCG planted in the vaccine.

My inquiries to Philippine officials went unanswered.

The Population Research Institute, in the November/December 1996 issue of its Review, published a report by David Morrison.

Morrison stated, “Philippine women may have been unwittingly vaccinated against their own children, a recent study conducted by the Philippine Medical Association (PMA) has indicated.

“The study tested random samples of a tetanus vaccine for the presence of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), a hormone essential to the establishment and maintenance of pregnancy … The PMA’s positive test results indicate that just such an abortifacient may have been administered to Philippine women without their consent.

“The PMA notified the Philippine Department of Health (PDOH) of these findings in a 16 September letter signed by the researchers and certified by its President. Using an immunological assay developed by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States, a three-doctor research panel tested forty-seven vials of tetanus vaccine collected at random from various health centers in Luzon and Mindanao. Nine were found to contain hCG in levels ranging from 0.191680 mIU/ml to 3.046061 mIU/ml. These vaccines, most of which were labeled as of Canadian origin, were supplied by the World Health Organization as part of a WHO-sponsored [sterilization] vaccination program.”

Morrison’s article would seem to indicate that the vials of vaccine tested came from a widespread immunization campaign rather than from a small pilot study of a few women.

The Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation was created at the World Health Organization in 1973. Ute Sprenger, writing in Biotechnology and Development Monitor (December 1995) describes the Task Force:

“…a global coordinating body for anti-fertility vaccine R&D…such as anti-sperm and anti-ovum vaccines and vaccines designed to neutralize the biological functions of hCG.”

Sprenger indicates that, as of 1995, there were several large groups researching these vaccines. Among them:

* WHO/HRP. HRP is the Special Progamme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, located in Switzerland. It is funded by “the governments of Sweden, United Kingdom, Norway, Denmark, Germany and Canada, as well as the UNFPA and the World Bank.”

* The Population Council. It’s a US group funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, the National Institutes of Health [a US federal agency], and the US Agency for International Development [notorious for its collaborations with the CIA].

* National Institute of Immunology. Located in India, “major funders are the Indian government, the Canadian International Development Research Center and the [ubiquitous] Rockefeller Foundation.”

* The Center for Population Research, located at the US National Institute of Child Health and Development [!], which is part of the US National Institutes of Health.

The Lancet, 4 June, 1998, p.1272: “During the recent National Immunisation Campaign (vaccination for childhood diseases and tetanus toxoid for pregnant women), in some villages [of Thailand] the women escaped and hid in the bushes thinking that they were going to be given injections to stop them having children.”

AP, Boston Globe, October 10, 1992, “Birth-control vaccine is reported in India”: “Scientists said yesterday they have created the first birth-control shot for women, effective for an entire year…[after which] a booster shot is needed.”

There are other citations from published medical literature—but you get the idea: vaccines as depopulation instruments.

And the hCG versions I refer to appear to be crude efforts. Who knows what levels of sophistication have been achieved in secret?

To a highly significant degree, the CDC and the World Health Organization are PR agencies, whose job is to convince the public that stepping up, rolling up their sleeves, and submitting to shots containing germs and toxic chemicals is the most natural and wise action possible.

Yes, and ignorance is strength.

The Matrix is designed inside out and upside down.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com